The differences far outweigh the similarities; try looking at them from this perspective:

Fundamentally different!

Agreed, except maybe regarding the adverb, "fundamentally." From the perspective you provided of it flying, it even puts me in mind of a Supermarine Spitfire - or vice versa. I don't pretend to be very well versed on aviation during the 1940s, but why wouldn't allies and enemies alike get ideas from one another? Powered flight at the time of the war was less than forty years old and so designers were still discovering what the possibilities were and learning what worked and what didn't. At least Orville Wright was still alive at the time and had to marvel at the incredible advances that began with he and his brother's experimental craft of the early 1900s.

Different nations certainly got ideas from each other; have you seen the first Daimler Benz proposal for what eventually became the Panther:

Definite T34 influences there!

Oh yeah, definitely. For all their brilliant technology, it would seem the now obviously good idea of sloped armor had eluded the German (and other nations') tank designers until seeing its effectiveness as evidenced by Soviet tanks. Still, lighter Panzer vehicles such as the Sd.Kfz. 222 and 251 utilized sloped armor and were designed and in service prior to the advent of the Tiger I which presented a perpendicular hull and turret relative to most to incoming fire. My favorite main battle tank of the war is nevertheless the Tiger I, because of its boxy appearance for one. Its road wheel configuration also certainly borrowed heavily from the Christie suspension you mentioned earlier in the thread, the Vorpanzers and models that preceded it still utilizing the problematic bogey wheel type suspension as did most of the era.

Looking back with our 20/20 hindsight, a lot seems obvious as other things seem almost inexplicable in ordnance design in WWII. So much was happening so quickly and under such duress, it's no wonder some things were overlooked and how it seems there was at times a lack of communication and/or coordination among arms manufacturers working for the same side. The lack of variety of US armor compared to the other nations for instance, always puzzled me a bit. The "answer" to the inferiority of the Sherman in both armor and firepower for example, was to just make a whole lot of 'em, other than the Firefly variation and a few isolated examples. Too bad and tragically in many cases for US Army tankers of the time, who nicknamed the M4 the Ronson, like the cigarette lighter.

The first 4 show what are unmistakably a Mustang, Aircobra, Hurricane, and Spitfire with Soviet markings. My contention is that this was what was available to the Soviets in '41. The last is a Yak from about '44/'45 which shows the borrowed influence from both the Spitfire and the Mustang.

Oh yeah, definitely. For all their brilliant technology, it would seem the now obviously good idea of sloped armor had eluded the German (and other nations') tank designers until seeing its effectiveness as evidenced by Soviet tanks. Still, lighter Panzer vehicles such as the Sd.Kfz. 222 and 251 utilized sloped armor and were designed and in service prior to the advent of the Tiger I which presented a perpendicular hull and turret relative to most to incoming fire. My favorite main battle tank of the war is nevertheless the Tiger I, because of its boxy appearance for one. Its road wheel configuration also certainly borrowed heavily from the Christie suspension you mentioned earlier in the thread, the Vorpanzers and models that preceded it still utilizing the problematic bogey wheel type suspension as did most of the era.

Looking back with our 20/20 hindsight, a lot seems obvious as other things seem almost inexplicable in ordnance design in WWII. So much was happening so quickly and under such duress, it's no wonder some things were overlooked and how it seems there was at times a lack of communication and/or coordination among arms manufacturers working for the same side. The lack of variety of US armor compared to the other nations for instance, always puzzled me a bit. The "answer" to the inferiority of the Sherman in both armor and firepower for example, was to just make a whole lot of 'em, other than the Firefly variation and a few isolated examples. Too bad and tragically in many cases for US Army tankers of the time, who nicknamed the M4 the Ronson, like the cigarette lighter.

.

It had to suck being an Allied tanker in the Sherman, other than in terms of mobility and reliability. The 17 pounder was a British gun, by the way. Those poor blighters spent most of the war with the 2 pounder, so gun technology certainly increased dramatically from '39 to '45. The Germans also called the Sherman "Tommy cooker" due to its tendency to quickly "brew up" after being hit. What a horrible way to go, trapped inside a burning tank. What brave men.

For Hitler to win WWII, he would have had to ensure that the Americans and Soviets weren't fought at the same time. It was the allies encircling his forces from all sides that caused him to lose. Had Hitler kept his non-aggression pact with the Soviets, it is possible he would have been able to successfully overtake Britain, and push the Americans off of the European continent. If Germany had finished designing the atomic bomb, and used it with the V2 rocket, there's no telling what would have happened, so yes, if Germany would have fought the allies individually, its possible that they could have won the war, and with vastly superior technology, they might have been able to conquer all of Europe at the very least.

For Hitler to win WWII, he would have had to ensure that the Americans and Soviets weren't fought at the same time. It was the allies encircling his forces from all sides that caused him to lose. Had Hitler kept his non-aggression pact with the Soviets, it is possible he would have been able to successfully overtake Britain, and push the Americans off of the European continent. If Germany had finished designing the atomic bomb, and used it with the V2 rocket, there's no telling what would have happened, so yes, if Germany would have fought the allies individually, its possible that they could have won the war, and with vastly superior technology, they might have been able to conquer all of Europe at the very least.

While I do agree with you about the fact that Hitler could have won if he hadn't broken the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact with the USSR, I must admit I don't think he had much of a choice. Hitler and Stalin were both stalling for time to reinforce their armies. I suppose Hitler felt he had waited long enough and attacked. There may also be another reason besides this that the pact should have been maintained. The Nazis and the Soviets were about to start a deal that would've given the Germans all of the oil they would need to speed up production of weapons and armored vehicles, which would've meant crucial victories against the other Allied Forces, and as you stated earlier, the development of V-2 rocket technology and Atomic weaponry which would've signaled the end of WWII. Had Hitler and Stalin refrained from breaking their pact, similar events would've unfolded between the two nations. By the time the Soviets could've caught up to Nazi Germany's technology, Hitler would've completed his quest for 'living space', and the Cold War would've been between Nazi Germany and the USSR. This concept, while farfetched, is extremely interesting to think about. "Herr Gorbachev...tear down this wall!...or face the Waffen-SS Panzer Division!" More than likely though, Hitler probably would've just took over The USSR after Stalin's death in 1953. It doesn't matter though, I'd bet anything that Hitler escaped Berlin during Operation ODESSA.